Unconstitutionalcare

[YankeeFan]

Better to have incentives. Guarantees that rates would only go up so much -- based on an avoidance of poor choices such as smoking, weight gain, etc.

Can't believe a good conservative like you would advocate anything that would take away from a person's freedom of choice.

I don't know about you, but the last thing on Earth I want is some ****ing insurance company dictating my personal choices based on their "incentives". And "long-term assessment" for insurance company usually equals "find as much as **** as we can to screw over the customer."

And I say that as a non-smoking, very light drinker who is of a normal weight who understands your overall point, but who thinks your solution would go over like a lead balloon.

I'm all for personal choices.

I hate the idea of a soda tax or a fast food tax. I rarely drink soda or eat at McDonald's, but on the rare occasion I do, I don't want to pay a tax for the privilege.

But, if you want to make certain choices, then you should be willing to deal with the consequences.

And, of course my idea would go over like a lead balloon. Making people deal with the consequences of their actions will never be popular -- especially when they don't currently have to live with them.

 

[Bubbler]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

That's all well and good, but I see you ignored my friend here ...

The costs themselves have to be addressed too, as in, health providers, doctors, etc., need to stop gouging the ever-living **** out of everyone for the most basic services.

I had a consult with my heart doctor a few months ago. I literally talked to him for 30 seconds. The pre-insured bill was something like $320. That's total insanity.

There are hospitals that charge $50 for patients to get an extra blanket.

Horse**** gouging and profiteering drives up costs too. I don't hear much of anything that is addressing that aspect of health costs.

 

[Bubbler]

Better to have incentives. Guarantees that rates would only go up so much -- based on an avoidance of poor choices such as smoking, weight gain, etc.

Can't believe a good conservative like you would advocate anything that would take away from a person's freedom of choice.

I don't know about you, but the last thing on Earth I want is some ****ing insurance company dictating my personal choices based on their "incentives". And "long-term assessment" for insurance company usually equals "find as much as **** as we can to screw over the customer."

And I say that as a non-smoking, very light drinker who is of a normal weight who understands your overall point, but who thinks your solution would go over like a lead balloon.

I'm all for personal choices.

I hate the idea of a soda tax or a fast food tax. I rarely drink soda or eat at McDonald's, but on the rare occasion I do, I don't want to pay a tax for the privilege.

But, if you want to make certain choices, then you should be willing to deal with the consequences.

And, of course my idea would go over like a lead balloon. Making people deal with the consequences of their actions will never be popular -- especially when they don't currently have to live with them.

I'm more down with a sin tax than some monolithic insurance company telling people what they can or can't eat. That's one slippery slope I want no part of.

 

[YankeeFan]

The costs themselves have to be addressed too, as in, health providers, doctors, etc., need to stop gouging the ever-living **** out of everyone for the most basic services.

I had a consult with my heart doctor a few months ago. I literally talked to him for 30 seconds. The pre-insured bill was something like $320. That's total insanity.

There are hospitals that charge $50 for patients to get an extra blanket.

Horse**** gouging and profiteering drives up costs too. I don't hear much of anything that is addressing that aspect of health costs.

But, a lot of that is making up for other areas where they got screwed. Where they didn't get reimbursed at the proper rate.

So, like a guy padding his expense report with an extra cab ride to make up for not getting reimbursed for a meal, you pay more for certain items.

 

[YankeeFan]

I'm more down with a sin tax than some monolithic insurance company telling people what they can or can't eat. That's one slippery slope I want no part of.

Well, they wouldn't tell you what you could or couldn't eat. You'd just pay more in insurance rates for the privilege.

It's not that big a difference, except that if I have one Big Mac a month, I'm not subsidizing the person who eats there every day.

 

[J Staley]

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

I agree with you about people wanting to treat everything with a pill rather than using preventative techniques such as diet and exercise, that is a problem.

That's why it's important for people to understand, from an early age, the importance of maintaining health -- unless of course it's the government trying to tell you what to do, right?

I'm healthy and rarely go to the doctor. And I'll admit that it doesn't feel right for me to pay the healthcare costs of those that visit doctors regularly. But if the alternative is having a large group of people that can't reasonably get heath care, I guess I'll pull up my bootstraps.

The thinking you display in this post is a good example of why I can't relate to Republican logic sometimes. You all love to preach about the virtues of liberty, but it only seems to apply to those that make the "correct" decisions.

 

[Bubbler]

The costs themselves have to be addressed too, as in, health providers, doctors, etc., need to stop gouging the ever-living **** out of everyone for the most basic services.

I had a consult with my heart doctor a few months ago. I literally talked to him for 30 seconds. The pre-insured bill was something like $320. That's total insanity.

There are hospitals that charge $50 for patients to get an extra blanket.

Horse**** gouging and profiteering drives up costs too. I don't hear much of anything that is addressing that aspect of health costs.

But, a lot of that is making up for other areas where they got screwed. Where they didn't get reimbursed at the proper rate.

So, like a guy padding his expense report with an extra cab ride to make up for not getting reimbursed for a meal, you pay more for certain items.

Reimbursed at what proper rate? That's circular logic. I get what you're saying, but part of the problem is their rate.

It's a self-fulfilling system. Charge too much for services, some people can't pay, pass the higher costs on to those who can. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Maybe, just maybe, they're charging too damn much to begin with.

 

[JonnyD]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

How is it different. The government is telling people that they *must* buy something from private companies. If the government wants to run health care, the government should run health care. That'd be a great way to solve the problem.

Funneling this "tax" through corrupt corporations is the worst of all possible solutions. You are right, though: This is a massive tax increase, levied regressively on middle-class Americans who will see their premiums skyrocket, payable directly to private corporations. Remind me again why liberals are excited about it?

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government stepping into the field of health care. I'm questioning the legitimacy of *this* specific plan, which is the most appallingly conservative national health care plan ever taken seriously.

 

[Bubbler]

I'm more down with a sin tax than some monolithic insurance company telling people what they can or can't eat. That's one slippery slope I want no part of.

Well, they wouldn't tell you what you could or couldn't eat. You'd just pay more in insurance rates for the privilege.

So, in other words, they're telling you what you eat.

That's like telling someone in a prison camp, "You're totally free to go at any time you wish, but we'll shoot you if you cross that line. But you are free to go when you want!"

 

[Azrael]

What's wrong with the systems in Germany or Switzerland?

Nothing.

 

[Azrael]

German workers pay a tax to get out of the universal health care and get private insurance. Yeah, that's really something I want to deal with. Our system might not be great, but at least it's not government-run. I pray it stays that way.

Do you have a citation for that?

 

[Dick Whitman]

No one "charges too much" for anything.

You are not going to change the law of supply-and-demand. It is as true as 2+2=4.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

How is it different. The government is telling people that they *must* buy something from private companies.

No they aren't. You can opt out. You just have to then pay the tax penalty.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Saw the subject line. Bet myself a million bucks I knew who started the thread. Clicking to see confirmed I won. And lost.

 

[JonnyD]

No they aren't. You can opt out. You just have to then pay the tax penalty.

And you can shoot someone in the face, you just have to pay the jail penalty.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

No one "charges too much" for anything.

You are not going to change the law of supply-and-demand. It is as true as 2+2=4.

Gasoline, utilities, cable.

Next.

 

[CarltonBanks]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?

Because there are certain aspects to it that finally take care (hopefully) of some of the bull**** that insurance companies were getting away with for years. No more denying coverage on alleged pre-existing conditions. No more putting a lifetime cap on the amount of money that a company will pay, thereby preventing people with serious illnesses or injuries from becoming bankrupt. And it allows parents to keep their kids on their plan longer while the kids are struggling in this economy to either get a FT job, or to use the job to pay back their student loans instead of having their checks deducted for insurance.

I thought this was different because this was the first time a Democrat deemed the individual mandate unconstitutional. And, JohnnyD, that is my question. Yes, our health care coverage system is a mess and, yes, something needs to be done. But it is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing. This law is a fiasco. For all the talk of bipartisianship when Obama took office, this was the biggest indication that he was just blowing smoke. Even recently the CBO found another $50 billion annually in hidden costs. We simply cannot afford this law, and the law does not even come close to doing what liberals want. All this does is tell John Q. Taxpayer he HAS to buy health insurance. How is this a good law?

Well, the GOP had power for almost 6 years. If they were serious about health care reform, they would have done something. They didn't.

I've said it before. Had the GOP done some sort of reform of the worst parts of the industry, such as the pre-existing bull****, or the "Usual and customary" crap, there wouldn't have been a need for Obamacare.

Baron, I agree with you. The GOP's refusal to tackle this in the six years it had the lead is inexcusable. That was yet another thing on Bush's long list of topics where he had a failureship to lead, and he does deserve to be taken to task for this. However...
Bush got hammered for his expensive prescription drug program that was yet another unfunded mandate. Obama's health care reform is much, much more of the same. They are still finding things in it that will add to the cost. Like I said, doing nothing was better than doing the wrong thing. However, I see your point that something had to be done. So this leads to the crux of the argument...yhis should have been handled quite differently. Passing something this huge on a purely partisan basis was a big mistake by Obama, and I really think despite all the talk about the debt limit and his percieved weakness there, the reason Obama is going to lose in 2012 is because of how Obamacare was passed against the will of the people. I think about the Dems prancing past the protestors on the Hill, what a show of arrogance that was. Nancy Pelosi and her friends just added fuel to the fire and MADE SURE the Tea Party and friends would not forget. That kind of set the tone for the rest of Obama's term.

What should have been done was a solid, if not unspectacular, approach to health care reform that incorporated ideas from all sides. Not a giant "F-You" approach. Something could have been done that was an actual positive achievement form Obama...a real legacy instead of what we ended up with. The Republicans showed up ready to talk and were told there was no room at the Inn. This is not Obama's fault, but it reflected badly on him because the entire process seemed so corrupt.
Meanwhile, again in a failure to message well, Obama's staff went with "we are going to add 30 million people to the health care insurance rolls, people who cannot afford to pay for it, and doing this will save us billions of dollars." Seriously, that was the message. Sometimes I wonder if Obama even has PR people.
I think this law will either be struck down or repealed. When this happens I hope the GOP can, instead of taking an Obama-bashing victory lap, actually get together with the other side to solve the problem correctly this time. I won't hold my breath.

Carlton, I give you credit for admitting the GOP's wrongdoing on healthcare. Though what ultimately passed was something that Republicans would have accepted when the Clintons tried this in 1993.

How about this idea: create a set of federal coverage standards (X% must be covered by Y date, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, etc.) and let each state develop its own system to meet those standards. If a state wants something like Mitt Romney signed in MA, that's OK. If a state wants a single-payer system like Vermont's governor signed a few months ago, that's OK too. The key is that each state is designing its own system, rather than a federally-mandated, one-size-fits-all system.

Would that have been more acceptable to you?

Sub... not to go all tenther on you but, yes, that would have been much more acceptable. One size fits all programs rarely work at any level of government. If the states were given the ability to not just decide, but add or subtract from the packages offered, yes, that would have been much better.

 

[JonnyD]

Actually, now that I think about it, weren't journalists the ones who established the court precedent that taxation used punitively is the equivalent of a ban? Something about a newspaper tax in Minnesota, I dunno, it's been forever since comm law and I'm getting old.

 

[CarltonBanks]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be hell to pay.

All of this is pretty much dead-on.

One reason it makes me absolutely ill to see Palin and other movement conservatives rip Michelle Obama at every turn for promoting healthy eating habits. WTF?

Well, Palin was ripped for "death panels," and in a roundabout way isn't that what you are talking about?

 

[deskslave]

Because health outcomes aren't already affected by the state one lives in.

To say nothing of the fact that the states where a government role is likely to be most needed also happen to be those states that like to trash the feds while simultaneously holding out their hands.

And say what you will: There is no way on God's green earth that the federal government setting minimums for the states to meet wouldn't have been met with the same hue and cry that the current plan has been.